spin

---------------------
1) I myself am my moral standard (moral subjectivism, I guess also the standard of Jeffrey Dahmer);
---------------------

Michael:
---------------------
Spin, all morals are relative. It's just that some of us don't have any problem in recognizing that fact.
---------------------

Relative to what though?

Michael:
---------------------
Where do your "absolute" morals come from?

As for Dahmer, his problem was a sickness, not morals.
---------------------

This is easy to say after having been caught. He's said the "right thing", but what does that mean to the time when he was practising?

Michael:
---------------------
Spin, you've managed to offend everyone in every thread you've posted. Maybe there's a clue in there somewhere, eh?
---------------------

Sorry, Michael, but where are the insult in my posts on this thread?

spin

Bree,

It's a little hard to answer everyone, especially when everyone has their own particular angle they come from.

I don't know anything about the condition you mention. I do know that the consumption of meat is so institutionalised, that doctors would think twice about recommending it as a source of protein.

I have proffered a very simple idea of morals for those who have asked: morality involves the protection and benefit of the most possible lives; where this is not possible, morality involves reducing the resultant damage to a minimum.

spin

SK:
-----------------
I really don't think that anyone on this thread needs a moral defense for eating meat as there is nothing morally wrong with eating meat that is not subjective.
Again, if one feels that eating meat is morally reprehensible then don't eat it but it is far from being a widely accepted societal moral.
-----------------

Why are you posting on a thread called "Plea for a moral defence of eating meat"? Your comments are not related directly to the thread topic. If you think people don't need a moral defence then fine. I wasn't asking about that. I was asking people to make a defence.

spin

Alfonzo Fyfe,

I don't think your attempt to have all carnivores killed is on the thread topic.

-----------------------------------

I realise you are not serious, but are attempting to say something like "if we don't kill the carnivores why should we stop eating meat, when they don't have to."

Again: you don't have to eat meat.

You have perhaps read the moral stance I have posted here.

spin

Michael:
---------------------
Spin, all morals are relative. It's just that some of us don't have any problem in recognizing that fact.
---------------------

spin:
---------------------
Relative to what though?
---------------------

This incidentally is not a vain question. If it is relative only to oneself, then I reject them as not being moral at all, as, in my understanding, morals are external to the individual's desires and need to be to have meaning.

Aethernaut

I believe my previous point is valid and shouldn't be dismissed. If there is nothing morally wrong with ingesting animal flesh then there is no point of "asking people to make a defence."

No defense is needed, particularly considering that meat is a natual part of an omnivorous diet. Spin chooses not to eat meat on personal moral grounds, I choose not to eat meat because I feel healthier doing so. It's a choice not a moral imperative.

Along the same line of reasoning, it's like asking an ovo-lacto vegetarian to come up with a moral reason condoning the enslavement of animals to provide them with milk & eggs. We don't find anything morally wrong with treating our animals like slaves for thier byproducts. Don't we, as humans in free society, frown upon slavery? Should the human right to personal sovereignty be extended to animals? Call it a plea for a moral defense of eating cheese.

-SK

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Schroedinger's Kitten ]</p>

Danya

Spin,

You have completely dismissed Bree's explanation that her reasons for not continuing on a vegan diet was because her body was lacking certain nutrients.
This was simply dismissed as well saying that there is documentation that a vegan diet can be healthy and since you suffer no ill effects so it should be for everyone.

That is like telling someone who is allergic to nuts that since others can eat them they should be able to as well. Or telling someone with diabetes that they should be able to drink juice because it is documented to be healthy so this must be so for everyone.

I would be unwilling to eat cat meat because I view them as pets. Some Asian countries view them as a food source. I do not feel compelled to save all of the cats in Asia from becoming someones next meal. People are animals. There is a food chain. We are advanced enough to harvest, fish, hunt, or breed our food. IMO none of these choices are immoral.

-DM-

"Most vegetarians I ever see looked enough like their food to be classed as cannibals."
-- Finley Peter Dunne (1867-1936), U.S. journalist, humorist. Mr. Dooley's Philosophy, "Casual Observations" (1900).

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
-- W. R. Inge (1860-1954), Dean of St. Paul's, London. Outspoken Essays, "Patriotism" (First Series, 1919; first published 1915).

"The thought of two thousand people crunching celery at the same time horrified me."
-- George Bernard Shaw, George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), British dramatist, novelist, critic, social reformer and wit explaining why he had turned down an invitation to a vegetarian gala dinner.

Not Prince Hamlet

Don,

Those were hysterical!

Jeff

echoes

I know that's not really an issue today since our meat sources are all domesticated, but historically speaking, it was an issue.

The closest thing to that today is hunting regulations, which the state government has to keep animal populations in balance.